Topic: Our solar system may be unique...

[E_Look]

Fedman, I share your theological views.

But as a scientist, I wonder about "heat death".  According to thermodynamics, the universe is going to go out not with a bang or intense heat, but not even a whimper, kind of just thinning out until ... no more!  (Just like Apollo after Kirk got the girl to hurt his feelings!)

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Fedman, I share your theological views.

But as a scientist, I wonder about "heat death".  According to thermodynamics, the universe is going to go out not with a bang or intense heat, but not even a whimper, kind of just thinning out until ... no more!  (Just like Apollo after Kirk got the girl to hurt his feelings!)

And the Sovereign one who is the author of thermodynamics and brought about all matter with a bang cannot end it the same way? 

[Clark Kent]

My knowledge in this area is somewhat lacking, but here goes anyway:
The last article I read on the subject said that the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate.  So, where as here on earth what goes up slowly approaches a speed of zero then comes back down, and what we know in space will jsut go up at a constant speed unless some kind of gravitational force affects it.  The universe, on the other hand, is doing neither. 
Now, I have no idea why it's doing this, but this phenomena does tell me a couple things:
1) we're not sure how this phenomena began
2) we barely know what's happening now.
That said, I made the following conclusion:
To discern a pattern, you need to pinpoint a minimum of 2 points in a series (1 and 2), and even then, it's not likely to be an accurate pattern you've figured out.  Since we have no clear census on 1 or 2, we have no idea what 3 is.  Ergo, it's a bit early to weigh in on the universe fizzling out without even a wimper theory.

[E_Look]

CK, very valid points.

Ultimately, your statement is the most scientific, as it is philosophically most true.  We don't really know what the universe is up to or what got it going so.

But there is a gravitational force in the universe: all matter exerts gravitational attraction on other matter.  I wonder if there isn't a conservative, balancing thrust in a direction opposite to that of the currently observed expansion.

And I think Fedman's got the right idea; God could step in anytime and cut history off and declare Judgment Day.  In that scenario, thermo's grip would be shattered.

[Clark Kent]

Thanks E_Look.
I think it's important to balance what you  know with wha tyou conjecture, and scientists often seem to mistake theory with fact too often.  For instance, evolution: does it seem likely that this occurs?  Absolutely, even the ancient greeks were able to see changes in animal and plant life over generations (read aristotle).  They had evolution all worked out millenia before Darwin existed.  But here's the catch:  do you actually know evolution to be a cold hard fact?  Also, people seem to jump on correlation as though it were the end all be all.  For example: in new york whenever there has been a brown out, 9 months later there is a jump in the birthrate.  Does this mean that brown outs cause pregnancy?  Not the last time I checked.  There's a strong correlation, and I leave the reason to that correlation to your imagination, but no causal relationship. 
There have been times where I've talked to scientifically minded people and been seriously irritated because of the flaws in science as they inderstand it.  Hume once wrote an excellent argument against religion as most people understand it, and as I went through it I realized that it tore apart scientific principle as much as religion.  When I asked about this, a Philosophy prof told me that that essay was amongst a long list why philosophers, scientists and theologians can't get along.
Sad, really

[Fedman NCC-3758]

I don't know about scientists and theologians getting along, I get along with anyone
of good will.

The basic difference is theologians are people of faith.
Scientists are people of study.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Science cannot not study what cannot be seen or measured.

Good posting guys. 

[Clark Kent]

I had a couple of Scince profs- biology, who argued fervently that philosophers had no place in this world and that philosophy and ethics should be left to scientists since they were the only truly informed people in this world.  I wholeheartedly disagreed, but kept my mouth shut since I've been failed in classes for such discussions.  I've also had several science teachers/profs that scoff at the mere mention of faith or religion.
On the flip side, I had a philosophy professor who is a devoted catholic, although he'd never admit it to any of his students since he prizes keeping his personal information from his students in order to keep them from biasing what they say to him in order appease his beliefs.  In any event, he went out to visit some family and went to mass and became steadily uncomfortable as the Priest went through a very comprehensive and thorough assault on philosophers because they "only seek to destroy that which you hold dearest."
Another great example is Plato's "The Euthyphro"
For some reason, all three fields which seek to find the meaning to our existance can not get along with each other. 

[likkerpig]

I had a couple of Scince profs- biology, who argued fervently that philosophers had no place in this world and that philosophy and ethics should be left to scientists since they were the only truly informed people in this world.  I wholeheartedly disagreed, but kept my mouth shut since I've been failed in classes for such discussions.  I've also had several science teachers/profs that scoff at the mere mention of faith or religion.
On the flip side, I had a philosophy professor who is a devoted catholic, although he'd never admit it to any of his students since he prizes keeping his personal information from his students in order to keep them from biasing what they say to him in order appease his beliefs.  In any event, he went out to visit some family and went to mass and became steadily uncomfortable as the Priest went through a very comprehensive and thorough assault on philosophers because they "only seek to destroy that which you hold dearest."
Another great example is Plato's "The Euthyphro"
For some reason, all three fields which seek to find the meaning to our existance can not get along with each other. 

Heh. Actually it isn't hard to understand why science and religion don't get along to well. Aside from the basic premise of each, religion held the upper hand until recently and suppressed any science that contradicted with the tenents of the faith. Philosophy... I have no idea.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Again, I think only some scientist and theologians don't get along.

Many world renown scientists are firm believers.

Quote:
I had a couple of Science profs- biology, who argued fervently that philosophers had no place in this world and that philosophy and ethics should be left to scientists since they were the only truly informed people in this world.
Unquote.

Quite a few scientists in Germany held the same views.

Scientists only concern themselves with the natural and physical.

It's the old story of the amoral scientist driven by ego that inspired so many science
fiction and horror novels. e.g. Frankenstein.

[likkerpig]

Bah!
Don't be so simplistic.
I'm talking about the grander scheme of things. Wasn't Einstien a believer in Judism?
The dark ages came about because the Catholic church (as it was at the time) supressed all knowledge that conflicted with thier theology. Galellio imprisioned until he recanted? The Inqisition hunting out heresies...
Islam is still fighting a losing battle against this, so are true fundy Christians. Science doesn't disprove your beliefs, it makes you re-evaluate them, put them into a "currently" modern perspective.
The bible has gone from the literal truth to a collection of parables and wisdom that helps people on their course through life. Ya, that is a PC answer, but who really beleives Noah built an ark that carried two of every species? That Moses litterally parted the seas? One man and one woman produced the whole human race... talk about inbreeding!
The past is rampant with those that would supress knowledge in order to stay in power. Religious organizations are no different. How long did the Catholic church outlaw the knowledge of creating gunpowder... while the Papal armies used it at every opportunity.
It is not an even tit for tat disagreement . Science has been the butt of much discrimination, now it gets its own.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Simplistic about what??

I'm talking today, you're talking hundreds of years ago.
And since I'm not Catholic it wouldn't be fair for me to criticize
Catholics or their faith.

You choose not to believe scripture? That's your privilege.
I won't condemn you.

But today it's believers that are mocked and maligned by secular society.
Thread hijack now ends.

(BTW, it was God who parted the Red Sea, not Moses.) Thanks

[E_Look]

Likkerpig, the Catholic Church may not have helped in some instances, as you allude to, but in others, it did help preserve learning and books (why, ask any Irishman!  And I am neither Irish nor Catholic.)  It might be more appropriate to blame Rome for falling leading to the rise of feudal kings and a widespread and profound poverty that inhibited the growth and exploration of ideas.

Almost everyone was religious in those days including the scientists (I count myself as one today) and they saw their endeavor as a noble and majestic investigation into the splendors and glories of God as manifested through nature.

As for scientists and theologians not getting along, as someone else said, it depends on the ones.  Me-self (to quote someone on our boards   ), I prefer the conservative Protestant ones.

And, it seems that most of the nonbelieving or atheistic scientists come from the biological sciences, as they philosophically have the most to lose if there really is a God.  Most of the believing ones come from the more physical end of the scientific spectrum... maybe because we have the most philosophically to gain from God being real (hey- Prime Mover?  Answered!)... but me-self, I was a Christian before really learning any real science.  Science never ever dissuaded any of my belief; rather, it supports it, in just about everything I see... and philosophy didn't hurt it either.

[Clark Kent]

I like your attitude, E_Look.  I'm not trying to say that any side currently persecutes another in this three sided exploration of the universe in which we live.  Just that they don't seem to get along, at least not when it comes to the most devoted people of each of these persuits.  I too have seen more biology peeps (i can use that word if i want to  ) who are condemning of anything but p[ure science as they see it, and not entirely sure why that is.  But I've seen my share in other scientific fields as well.
The way I see it, there has to be an all powerful etc being, whether it be the God I worship, or one another religion worships, or none of the above.  Personally I believe that My God is this being, and that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  Now, trying to prove my belief is another topic altogether and time consuming, and I'd rather not get into it right now, and while I've found a couple realy good arguments and not been able to find any holes in them, I'm not entirely certain they are foiol proof arguments.

[likkerpig]

Sorry all, I bashed the Catholic church unilaterally, over old issues. Those issues were the ones that came readily to mind but certainly aren't unique to one faith. I apologize for any insult I made.

[E_Look]

Dude, a "+" for your strength of character.

Even on a faceless electronic BB, it's hard to own up... regardless of whether you're guilty OR NOT!

[Fedman NCC-3758]

I like your attitude, E_Look.  I'm not trying to say that any side currently persecutes another in this three sided exploration of the universe in which we live.  Just that they don't seem to get along, at least not when it comes to the most devoted people of each of these persuits.  I too have seen more biology peeps (i can use that word if i want to  ) who are condemning of anything but p[ure science as they see it, and not entirely sure why that is.  But I've seen my share in other scientific fields as well.
The way I see it, there has to be an all powerful etc being, whether it be the God I worship, or one another religion worships, or none of the above.  Personally I believe that My God is this being, and that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  Now, trying to prove my belief is another topic altogether and time consuming, and I'd rather not get into it right now, and while I've found a couple realy good arguments and not been able to find any holes in them, I'm not entirely certain they are foiol proof arguments.

I've liked the comparison to the highly structured, orderly universe (I can tell you if it was high or low tide when William the conqueror crossed the channel in 1066! LOL) coming about by no one, from nothing, for no reason,
analogous to having every page of the Britannica Encyclopedia thrown into the air, and have every page land face up, and in perfect numerical order.

A plus 1 to likkerpig from me as well.

[Core]

i believe that the three flanks work together and not fight IE : philosophy science religion
all of them can contribute to the overall developmet of this collective sentients as it was

and eventually accelerate it

[E_Look]

Well, Core, you're absolutely right, but I really don't see a way of making (atheistic) scientists respect theologians (theistic scientists don't have a problem with them) and either of those to see the relevance of some of the more far-out philosophical ideas (speaking as a theistic scientist).

We all have our prejudices and chosen beliefs.  If one happens to get into an intellectual field, there is a tendency then to use it as a soapbox for your beliefs.

[Core]

that is why we need all three of them to progress one of the parties can be the mediator as it were betwean the tow extreams

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Well, Core, you're absolutely right, but I really don't see a way of making (atheistic) scientists respect theologians (theistic scientists don't have a problem with them) and either of those to see the relevance of some of the more far-out philosophical ideas (speaking as a theistic scientist).

We all have our prejudices and chosen beliefs.  If one happens to get into an intellectual field, there is a tendency then to use it as a soapbox for your beliefs.

Well said E.

Also, when one says they "believe",  X, Y, or Z, they are stating that what they are saying can't be proved factually.
e.g. the existence of God. They are taking it on faith.